Thursday, August 12, 2010

I've been waiting for this former Christian to deconvert for a couple of years now. I knew he was way too intelligent to come to any other conclusion than the one he articulates quite nicely here:

Our roles in the Atheosphere are, by nature, a bit more limited in giving us a chance to observe real people, in real time, deconverting from religion. It has thus always been easy to remain cynical about it ever happening. YouTube is a more active community and, in my time there, I have met a number of people who have done so within the past couple of years - and who credit the things they have heard on YouTube and read on the Internet with having made a major difference in their thinking.

Who knows? Maybe CL is next. He isn't so terribly illogical in his thinking that he is beyond any hope of living the rest of his life without the supernatural thinking.

"Once people have a financial stake in Jesus (Mohammad, Krishna) they almost never come out of the darkness. It's why guys like William Lane Craig would NEVER admit it, even if they lost their faith. They aren't giving up the gravy train. Most humans find it easier to part with ego than money." ~Evo

That's the wildest speculation I've heard in some time. I thought you were a rationalist? I have no financial stake in Jesus, whatsoever. Of the books I've published to date, only one had a chapter about religion - a passing chapter at that. Nor am I in a position where I need more money than I currently have.

"...if he were smart he would have spent the last few years building a name for himself online as a rabid atheist and then announce he's "seen the Light" just in time to release his book." ~ChestPuffer

Why, so I could make more money? Gain more readers? I could care less about that. The arguments are what matters. Besides, what you suggest would be duplicitous - big surprise.

Yes it would be duplicitous, something I couldn't do but well within your exhibited repertoire, only, like I said, such a scheme would require intelligence and it's questionable how much of that you've ever exhibited.

What on God's green Earth are you talking about? You guys apparently don't even know what "quote mine" means. It occurs when person A quotes person B in a way that makes person B appear to endorse or oppose a position they do not actually endorse or oppose. Did I do that here? No. The claim is that Evo changes his standard when it comes to theism, not that Evo endorses or opposes something he actually doesn't. Stop for five seconds and quit being so thickheaded! Seriously. You guys are often in this knee-jerk reaction mode where you're not even responding to what's being said.

I mean, I got love for my atheist brethren and all that, but prove to me that the both of you aren't total idiots by demonstrating this "quote mine" I committed. Think about it for real, as opposed to just lashing out as usual.

"Quote mining" (to my understanding) is anytime you take a piece of someone's quote to support your own position, when if you had quoted in entirety or in full context, it would not.

By not continuing my quote (which only would have required that you finish my sentence), you can then make it appear that I'm hypocritical with this very same thing if it is applied to the "god question".

But I could be wrong on the exact definition of "quote mine". Perhaps you're right. In that case, I'd just say that your partial quote is duplicitous. Happy?